Short Note : 1. Plaintiff-appellants suit was dismissed by both the Courts below. Held : As regards the suit lands located in village Saraipali it was tried to be contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the suit was wrongly held as mot maintainable. His contention was that these lands were not the subject of litigation in the earlier suit which was filed by the mother of the plaintiff. Dukhibai, and as such the decree in the earlier suit cannot in any manner estop her from claiming the lands located in Saraipali as reversioner. Learned counsel for the other side disputed the submission and according to him the effect of the earlier decree would also operate as resjudicata in relation to Saraipali lands. It is clear that the suit lands located in Saraipali were not the subject-matter of litigation in the earlier Suit. Therefore, the position of the plaintiff as reversioner to litigate with reference to those lands cannot be ousted on the basis of the earlier decree. In the opinion of this Court, the provisions of section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure would have no application, to the extent the alienation of these lands is concerned. This Court, therefore holds that the Courts below were in error in holding that the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable as far as the lands in Saraipali were-concerned. Appeal partly allowed.